Mens Rea II – Intent
Mens
Rea is divided into various classes. The first type of Mens Rea and the easiest
to understand or comprehend is intent. Intention is affirmed when the defendant
wants something to happen as a result of his or her actions. Intention itself
can be divided into two categories - direct and oblique intent.
Direct
intent is relatively straightforward and easy enough to discern or establish.
For example the defendant wants to kill a person and in furtherance of his or
her thought, he or she goes to a shop and purchases a knife and having bought
the knife, he or she then stabs his or her victim with the knife, knowing that
his or her actions will result in the death of the victim.
Similarly
the defendant goes to a gunsmith to purchase a gun. He or she acquires the gun
and the bullets and at a chosen time and at an appointed location points the
gun at the victim and pulls the trigger, once again with the knowledge that his
or her actions will result in the death of the victim.
Let
us look at another example. The defendant invites the victim over for dinner
and prepares a meal that is laced with cyanide. He or she allows the victim to
consume the meal with the full knowledge that the victim will die as a result
of consuming the meal.
In
all the three examples given above the intention of the defendant is clear, in
that, the act is done to precipitate the death of the victim. In other words
the act is done with malice aforethought and the act is done with the
defendant’s mental faculties intact or the defendant is fully aware that his or
her actions will result in either death or grievous bodily harm to the victim.
Malice
afterthought simply means that the act is done with wanton, often utter,
disregard for human life or a degree of callousness that completely disregards
the consequences of the act.
Malice
afterthought however does not in any way imply hate, rage or any form of
ill-will towards the victim for example when the act of killing is done for
profit.
A
simple example would be large sum insurance pay-outs. There might not be any
dislike for the victim but in order for the defendant to benefit from the
policy the victim has to be dead and therefore the act of killing is committed
or perpetrated.
Oblique
intent occurs when the defendant claims that the consequences of his or her
actions were different from what he or she intended for example when an act is
done to scare or to intimidate the victim but it leads to or results in death.
In
Hyam v DPP (1974), Mrs. Hyam poured petrol (a flammable liquid) in the
letterbox of her lover’s (Mr. Jones) new partner (Mrs. Booth) which she ignited
by using a newspaper and a match to scare Mrs. Booth. The consequences of her
actions were that Mrs. Booth’s children died as a result of asphyxia.
The
house by a majority of three to two held that “No distinction is to be drawn in
English law between the state of mind of one who does an act because he desires
it to produce a particular evil consequence, and the state of mind of one who
does the act knowing full well that it is likely to produce that consequence
although it may not be the object he was seeking to achieve by doing the act” –
Lord Diplock.
This
area of the law was first recognized or realized in the case of DPP v Smith
(1961) - Smith had stolen some goods and loaded it to the back of his car. A
policeman ordered him to stop but he drove off instead and the policeman jumped
on to the back of the car in order to stop him. The policeman was subsequently
throw off from the back of the vehicle, into the path of other oncoming
vehicles and died as a result.
The
House of Lords unanimously upheld the conviction. In doing what he (Smith) did,
he must, as a reasonable man have contemplated that serious harm was likely to
occur. Hence he is guilty of murder.
The
test in DPP v Smith (1961) is as follows:- If the jury is satisfied that he
(Smith) must as a reasonable man have contemplated that grievous bodily harm
(GBH) was likely to have resulted to the policeman from his actions and such
harm did in actual fact occur, than the accused is guilty of murder. On the
other hand if the jury is satisfied that he (Smith) could not have contemplated
that the policeman would incur grievous bodily harm (GBH) as a result of his
actions then the verdict would be guilty of manslaughter.
This
is also sometimes known as foresight of consequence i.e. could the defendant
have reasonably contemplated the consequences of his actions?
The
test in DPP v Smith (1961) was supplanted by Section 8 of the Criminal Justice
Act (1967) - Proof of criminal intent.
A
court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence -
(a)
shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his
actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those
actions; but
(b)
shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all
the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the
circumstances.
In
Maloney (1985) the appellant and his stepfather had been drinking heavily
during a family party. Subsequently, after the other family members had retired
for the night, the pair participated in a gun loading contest which the
appellant won. The stepfather then challenged the appellant to pull the
trigger, which he did. The gun went off and he killed his stepfather. The
appellant argued that he loved and adored his stepfather.
Similarly
in Hancock and Shankland (1986) two striking miners dropped a concrete block
and a concrete post from a motorway bridge which struck a taxi taking a working
miner to work, thereby killing the taxi driver. The appellants argued that they
merely intended to stop the work from progressing or continuing.
In
both cases the trial judges directed the jury in terms of the second meaning of
intention (oblique intention), as given in Hyam V DPP (1974), and in both cases
the appellants were convicted by the jury for murder.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment